Here's another example of why Wikipedia is declining: it has locked its entry about Richard Dawkins to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.[3] Perhaps the atheists on Wikipedia don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said!

The body of the Islamic terrorism[4] page opens with "Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase while the body of the Christian terrorism[5] page opens with Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."[6]

Wikipedia's entry on Peter Singer[8] fails to mention his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were removed as being POV, despite appearing in the like-minded New York Times.[9]

Predictably, Wikipedia insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.[10] In characteristic fashion, Wikipedia misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to demonize them. Also in Wikipedia-style, it quotes liberal newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by National Review).

Wikipedia changes the meaning of a key quote from an abortion-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, et al.), falsely stating that it "concluded that abortion does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"[11] The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a pregnancy that terminates early.[12]

On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information[16] from the Wikipedia entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.[17] The editor then predicted on Conservapedia that the liberal bias would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.[18]

Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.[19] But within hours liberals on Wikipedia completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about Hollywood Values, in order to censor examples of how the liberal ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; Wikipedia hides a record of its ideological deletions.)

Wikipedia often smears conservatives with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, Wikipedia falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on Conservapedia,[20] but Wikipedia's references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on Conservapedia is likely older than on Wikipedia, so its smear is particularly hypocritical.

Wikipedia's entry on conservativeRon Paul smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"[21]), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction![22]

The Wikipedia entry on conservativeRick Scarborough falsely claimed that he said that HPV, a sexually transmitted disease, is God's punishment for sexually active young women. Wikipedia admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.

Wikipedia entries contain liberal claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Michael Farris states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to conservative leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,[25] but its citation for that liberal claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's television ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."[26]

Wikipedia's pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous conservative entries, such as that of pro-life scholar Mary Ann Glendon.[29] For nearly two weeks her entry on Wikipedia has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group. Liberal editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass conservatives to remain for a long time.

Wikipedia lies to exaggerate the credentials of atheistRichard Dawkins, falsely claiming that Dawkins "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford."[32] In fact, Oxford recently confirmed that the "Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree."[33]

The Good Friday Agreement is called precisely that by the BBC,[34] the vast majority of sites on Google, politicians and the public. But Wikipedia, dominated by an anti-Christian bias, does not like Christian names and it redirects that term to the less familiar "Belfast Agreement."[35]

Wikipedia has a strong bias against the Discovery Institute, a prominent proponent of Intelligent design. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism[37] and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[38]) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.

Wikipedia displays a similar bias against the Institute for Creation Research and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the ICR Graduate School, first in California and now in Texas, relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.[39][40][41]

Wikipedia's entry on the Prodigal Son devotes more words to obscure rock band and liberal media references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.[42]

Wikipedia's gossip and policy in favor of edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.[43] The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.[44]

Wikipedia displays pervasive bias in making liberal statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about Conservapedia.[45]Wikipedia states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.

A user named Richard Dawkins apparently edited his own article on Wikipedia,[46] and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating Wikipedia's favoritism towards liberals, it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)[47] for anybody to confront this well-known atheist for this conflict of interest, despite being against Wikipedia's own rules.

Arbitration Committee Chairman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to Michael Moore, whose official website published attacks on a Wikipedia editor with an open invitation to vandalize WikipediaMichael_Moore and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's propaganda. Even that which supports my own position." [8] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [9]Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder Jimbo Wales allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[10]_note-0 The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservativethink tank."[11]

Wikipedia heavily promotes liberals in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on Boy Scouts v. Dale, a conservativeSupreme Court decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"[48]Wikipedia eventually removed that liberal promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.[49]

For a long time Wikipedia led with a falsehood in describing Conservapedia: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."[50] That was defamatory in attempting to smear Conservapedia in front of Wikipedia's evolutionist audience. Wikipedia also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the Conservapedia and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.

Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"[51] a term that is an idiotic mockery of the Christianfaith. Wikipedia calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-Christian mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".

Wikipedia often inserts bias by downplaying a liberal outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that liberals forced Larry Summers to resign as president of Harvard because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.[53][54] But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on Wikipedia implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.[55]

Wikipedia welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly liberal. Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.

For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, Wikipedia classified its critics, including Conservapedia, as "Fanatics and Special Interests."[56]

Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".[58] The word "deceit" has no entry on Wikipedia. It was redirected to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.[59] Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on deceit here.

Wikipedia promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the sanctity of life). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,[60] and Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ended with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide.[61] After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on Wikipedia. In yet another example, Wikipedia has an entry for "suicide by cop"[62] to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university.

conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[66]

In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the DemocratJerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of domestic violence among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."[71]

Wikpedia's entry on liberal former Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.[74] But Wikipedia's entry on conservative Vice President Dick Cheney prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.[75]

Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about Thad Cochran,[76] a conservative Republican member of the U.S. Senate, smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.

Wikipedia smears prominent Christian conservatives, including James Dobson and D. James Kennedy, with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".[77] The term was made up by liberals and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these conservatives with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.[78] This edit [13] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.

Wikipedia's entry about the anti-Christian and anti-SemiticH.L. Mencken praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with fundamentalistChristianity."[79] After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."[80] Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.[81]

Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters[82] and its champion Zach Johnson,[83] who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his faith in Jesus Christ for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to Jesus Christ was included, but with the Wikipedia trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.[84]

Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[85] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[86] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.[87] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.

Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. Check out Wikipedia's entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"[90] How about a new slogan: Wikipedia: well, duh!

Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."[91] At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."[92]

Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."[93] "A worldwide view" is fictional liberal terminology for globalists.

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.[94]

Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.[95] Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."[96]

Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."[97] But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.[98] Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies!

Liberal icon Bertrand Russell receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."[99] After 7,700 words about Bertrand Russell, Wikipedia finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."[100]

Conservapedia allows greater and easier copying of its materials than Wikipedia does, but Wikipedia's entry about Conservapedia claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."[101] And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia![102]

April 24th was the anniversary of Operation Eagle Claw, which was President Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia entry explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia entry omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.[103] In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.

Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe[104] omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."[105]

Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[106] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[107] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[108] See also liberal quotient.

Wikipedia awarded "good article" status[109] to a biased description of liberal Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."[110] Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.[111] Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.

One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing Wikipedia statistics. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.[112]

Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[113] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[114]

Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[115]

In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[116] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[117] But no credible historian makes such a claim.

Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.[118]

About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[119] But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[120] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[121]

Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[122]

Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[123] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[124] Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"![125]

The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[126] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.

Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[127] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.

Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[128] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.

Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[129] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!

There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[130] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[131] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in Dover[132] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[133] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[134]

Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."[135] That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."[136] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".[137] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.[138]

Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[139] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer," which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.

Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about Indentured Servitude is massive, but it omitted any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."[140]

Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[141] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.[142] Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. Gresham's Law reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."

Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[143] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.

Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

Wikipedia's article on Feudalism is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.[144]

Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, William Donald Schaefer, contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.[145] 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!

Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article spells his wife's name incorrectly, and cites no source for the item. The item has been in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006.[146] No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.

Wikipedia's entry for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.[147] Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,[148] and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:

Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.

Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.[149] That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.[150]

Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the Encyclopedia Britannica, wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:

"One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."[151]

I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.

I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.

They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.

In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.

Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[153]

"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[154] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist John Lawrence Seigenthaler was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in USA Today, concluding with the following:[155]

When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."

What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthalerafterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:[156]

"Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."

The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."[157]

Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in this story:

"You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.

Wikipedia's entry for Johnny Appleseed, a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.[158]

Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,[166] but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.

Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service definition" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the United States, Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary Theory". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, liberal "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.[167][168]

Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:

Matriarchy is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.[169]

Patriarchy describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.[170]

Wikipedia's article on Jeremiah Wright repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.

Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.[171] Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".[172][173]

Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health has a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section saying that its sources may be unreliable. The sources are American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute.[174]

References

↑"And in that respect Wikipedia is no better than the National Enquirer. We don't quote the National Enquirer on television (unless [it's] for a documentary on aliens or some other conspiracy theory) so why would we do for Wikipedia?" [1]

↑The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[2]

↑[4] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.

↑In addition to the Fox News report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[5]

↑"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604

↑"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, such that no liberals would equate to zero liberal bias. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for liberals to conservatives.